Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Switchbacks near Boundaries of Small-scale Magnetic Flux Ropes in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Switchbacks in the young solar wind are regularly anchored to the boundaries of small-scale magnetic flux ropes: 86.4% of boundaries and 77.3% of ropes in Parker Solar Probe Encounter 4.

desk verdict New pattern—SBs at SMFR boundaries with polarity flips—is worth taking seriously, but the headline significance test is underdescribed and needs a proper null and sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08278 v1 pith:5BCLAEKN submitted 2025-06-09 astro-ph.SR physics.space-ph

Kyung-Eun Choi , Oleksiy V. Agapitov , Dae-Young Lee , Forrest Mozer , Jia Huang , Lucas Colomban , Jaye L. Verniero , Nour Raouafi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SRphysics.space-ph
keywords solarwindswitchbackssmall-scalemagneticfluxropesParkerProbefielddeflectionsropeboundariespolarityflippingyoung
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using Parker Solar Probe data from the co-rotating intervals of Encounters 1 and 4, this letter argues that switchbacks—sharp magnetic deflections that reverse the radial field—are regularly found at the boundaries of small-scale magnetic flux ropes (SMFRs), not scattered independently through the young solar wind. In the Encounter 4 sample the authors report switchbacks at 86.4% of SMFR boundaries and on both sides of 77.3% of the ropes, with a Monte Carlo comparison attributing 35.9% of all switchbacks to the 15-minute vicinity of a rope boundary at significance $\alpha<0.05$. The paired boundary switchbacks show coordinated geometry: the radial direction of the deflection is preserved while the transverse (T and/or N) field component reverses between the leading and trailing switchback, and the two axes are more closely connected to each other and to the SMFR orientation than to a spatially closer unrelated switchback. If the association is real, a substantial fraction of switchbacks are spatially and temporally anchored to small flux ropes, implying that rope-boundary processes contribute to switchback formation or that switchbacks form in magnetic environments shaped by the ropes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SMFR-related SB pair—a leading and a trailing switchback bracketing a small flux rope—together with the geometric plane constructed from the two SB axes, where each SB axis is the average local magnetic field direction inside the switchback treated as a magnetic tube. The plane is defined solely by the two mean axis directions rather than fitted to the data, and the measured field vectors inside each SB tend to align with it. The angle between this plane and the SMFR axis obtained from force-free cylindrical fitting is the diagnostic $\theta_{\mathrm{FR-SB}}$: it distinguishes T-flipping from N-flipping events, and larger values accompany the TN-flipping patterns that become more frequent closer to the Sun. The statistical side of the argument is a Monte Carlo comparison of the occurrence rate of SBs as a function of time separation from the nearest SMFR boundary, which is used to attach the $\alpha<0.05$ significance to the clustering in the 15-minute window.

What would settle it

Recompute the association with an explicitly stated null that shuffles switchback start times within each co-rotating interval while preserving their bursty clustering, and sweep the proximity window from 5 to 60 minutes; if a random but clustered switchback population already matches the 35.9% association or the 86.4% boundary fraction, then the claimed switchback–flux-rope coupling is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that switchbacks at the boundaries of small-scale flux ropes are a regular, organized phenomenon in the young solar wind rather than a chance alignment. Using the 22 SMFRs and 266 SBs identified in Parker Solar Probe Encounter 4, the authors find that 86.4% of SMFR boundaries have an associated SB, 77.3% of SMFRs are bounded by SBs on both sides, and 35.9% of SBs fall within 15 minutes of an SMFR boundary at a statistical significance level of $\alpha<0.05$. The SMFR-related SBs tend to come in coordinated pairs: the leading and trailing switchbacks flip the sign of $B_T$ and/or $B_N$ while keeping the radial deflection direction constrained, and the plane defined by the two SB axes is systematically related to the force-free-model axis of the intervening SMFR, with large inclination angles (63.2° and 50.1° in the two detailed cases). The authors interpret the paired geometry as evidence that the axes of SMFR-related switchbacks are determined by the SMFR orientation, meaning a fraction of switchbacks are coupled to flux-rope boundaries rather than being independent solar-wind structures.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the 35.9% association is statistically significant depends entirely on an unstated model of how switchbacks would be spaced if they were unrelated to flux ropes, and if that 'random' model does not reproduce the natural clumping of solar-wind structures, the reported clustering could occur in any structured wind.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Switchback occurrence rates in other Parker Solar Probe encounters should show a systematic enhancement within roughly 15 minutes of SMFR boundaries whenever co-rotating intervals are analyzed.
  • Models of switchback generation must explain paired leading/trailing deflections with coordinated $B_T$/$B_N$ polarity flips and axes aligned with a flux-rope orientation, not only isolated field reversals.
  • If 35.9% of switchbacks in Encounter 4 are rope-boundary associated, statistical studies that ignore SMFR boundaries will misclassify a substantial share of switchbacks as isolated structures.
  • The growing frequency of TN-flipping and larger $\theta_{\mathrm{FR-SB}}$ closer to the Sun implies heliocentric distance controls the geometric coupling between switchbacks and flux ropes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: applying the same plane-versus-axis geometry to Parker Solar Probe encounters that do have a global switchback asymmetry axis would show whether the small-rope organization seen in Encounters 1 and 4 is a general feature or is specific to encounters lacking large-scale ordering.
  • Beyond the paper: the unstated Monte Carlo null could be made explicit by shuffling switchback times while preserving the observed bursty clustering; this is the decisive robustness check for the 35.9% association.
  • Beyond the paper: if the 15-minute association window reflects a physical radial scale, the association fraction should vary systematically with solar-wind speed and heliocentric distance when the analysis is extended to Parker Solar Probe Encounters 5 through 7.
  • Manuscript note: the appendix's statement that the small Encounter 1 co-rotating sample shows the same trend points to a table with '??' as its cross-reference, so the Encounter 1 confirmation is not verifiable in the current draft.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript analyzes Parker Solar Probe observations from Encounters 1 and 4 to argue that switchbacks (SBs) are regularly found at the boundaries of small-scale magnetic flux ropes (SMFRs). Using published SB catalogs and force-free-modeled SMFR intervals, the authors report that in E4, 86.4% of SMFR boundaries have nearby SBs, 77.3% of SMFRs are bounded by SBs on both sides, and 35.9% of 266 SBs occur within 15 minutes of an SMFR boundary, a fraction they claim is statistically significant at α<0.05. They also report that paired leading and trailing SBs show coordinated T/N polarity flips and that SB axes are geometrically related to the SMFR axis, illustrated by two case studies and a 17-event table. The paper concludes that a fraction of SBs is spatially and temporally associated with SMFRs, possibly sharing a formation mechanism.

Significance. If the statistical association and the polarity-flip geometry are confirmed, this result would be an important constraint on switchback origin models, tying a substantial fraction of SBs to localized mesoscale flux-rope boundaries rather than exclusively to large-scale coronal or turbulence processes. The geometric analysis has a useful non-circularity: SB identifications come from independent published catalogs and SMFR axes from force-free fits, so the orientation pattern is not defined by the proximity-based association. The two detailed cases and the table of 17 events are valuable for follow-up. Nevertheless, the central quantitative claims rest on a Monte Carlo test that is not specified in the manuscript and on selection windows whose robustness is not demonstrated, so the strength of the association is currently unverifiable.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Figure 3(a)] The Monte Carlo null model behind the α<0.05 claim is not described. The text and the Figure 3(a) caption refer to occurrence rates from 'Monte Carlo experiments' with 50%, 68%, and 97.5% significance bands, but the manuscript never states how SB times were randomized, whether SMFR boundary times were held fixed, how many trials were run, or what distribution the colored bands represent. Because the same interval contains blob-like structures and density enhancements, SBs are not uniformly scattered in time; a null that randomizes SBs uniformly over the four-day interval would likely overstate significance. Please specify the null model completely and add a clustering-preserving sensitivity check, such as a block bootstrap or permutation of the gaps between observed SBs, and confirm that the 35.9% association remains significant.
  2. [§3.3] The 15-minute proximity threshold and the 5° Carrington longitude box are introduced post hoc. The text states that 'the majority of SB-FR intervals are observed within 15 minutes' and then uses this value as the association criterion for the headline percentages (35.9%, 86.4%, 77.3%), while the co-rotating interval is earlier described in terms of a 1.5° longitudinal zone. No sensitivity analysis is given for either choice. Please report the headline percentages as a function of the time window (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes) and of the longitude range, and state explicitly why the extended 5° box is appropriate for E4, before claiming these values as robust regularities.
  3. [§2, Table 1] SMFR boundary times are treated as exact reference points for the entire proximity analysis, but no uncertainties are provided for them. The boundaries were 'optimized' by minimizing the root-mean-squared error (Erms < 0.35) in the force-free modeling, and the text also notes that wave activity makes boundary determination challenging in the young solar wind; start and end times are therefore subject to uncertainty. Please estimate boundary-time uncertainties (for example, by perturbing the fit interval and recording the range of start/end times that keep Erms below threshold) and show how the 15-minute association statistics change when boundaries are shifted by these uncertainties.
  4. [§3.1-3.2, Table 1] The geometric claims rely on SB axes, SMFR axes, and the angle θ_FR-SB's plane without any uncertainty estimates. Case A reports a 63.2° inclination and Case B a 50.1° inclination between the SMFR axis and the SB-defined plane, and Case B claims that the leading SB is more closely aligned with the trailing SB than with another SB that is spatially closer. Because SB axes are defined as mean-field directions over intervals of order minutes, the variance of the magnetic field within each SB should be propagated into an axis uncertainty; without such estimates, the distinction between 'more connected' and 'spatially closer' is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] The text contains an unresolved cross-reference: 'E1 co-rotating interval (<1.5° latitudinal zone) has a similar trend provided by ?? in the appendix.' Please replace the placeholders with a proper reference to the appendix table.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption for panel (k) reads 'the locations of the 11 SMFRs and 245 SBs (22 SMFRs and 266 SBs), within 1.5° (5°)...' which is ambiguous; please clarify which numbers correspond to which longitude range.
  3. [Abstract] The sentence 'One study, in particular, focuses on SMFRs observed during the intervals...' is vague; identify the study (presumably Choi et al. 2024) and state what it established.
  4. [Throughout] The expression 'T Nflipping' appears without a space or a clear definition; use 'T/N flipping' consistently after defining it in Section 3.3.
  5. [§2] The force-free model used for boundary optimization is not specified; please name the model (linear/nonlinear force-free, constant-alpha) and cite the fitting procedure, since the Erms < 0.35 criterion alone does not define the fit.
  6. [Table 1] The column labeled 'time difference' is not defined in the text; specify whether it is measured from the SB center to the SMFR boundary and in which direction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the SB–SMFR association is measured from independently identified event lists, though the Monte Carlo null model is underspecified.

full rationale

The paper's central association claim is not circular: SMFR boundaries are determined by force-free-model fitting to PSP magnetic field and plasma data, while SBs are taken from published catalogs (Huang et al. 2023a; Agapitov et al. 2023), so the 86.4%, 77.3%, and 35.9% occurrence figures are computed from two independent event lists and could in principle have been very different. The label 'SMFR-related SBs' is a proximity-based classification applied after both structures were identified, not a definition that forces the reported association. The self-citations (Choi et al. 2024 for prior SMFR selection; Huang et al. 2023a and Agapitov et al. 2023 for SB databases) are used as data sources and context rather than as an imported uniqueness theorem, and the cited SB catalogs are external published products. The main weakness is that the Monte Carlo experiments behind the α<0.05 significance claim are not described in the manuscript, so the null model and number of trials cannot be checked; this is a reproducibility limitation, not a demonstrated instance of the result reducing to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of SMFR identification and boundary optimization, the co-rotating source assumption, the magnetic-tube model for SB axes, and an unspecified Monte Carlo null model. None of these are independently verified in the preprint; the most fragile is the statistical null model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SMFR boundary times (start and end) = per event, optimized with Erms < 0.35
    Boundaries are chosen to minimize force-free model error; the SB proximity statistics depend on these boundary times.
  • 15-minute SB-SMFR proximity threshold = 15 minutes
    Chosen by hand to define SMFR-related SBs; the reported 35.9% and 86.4% percentages depend on it.
  • Force-free model axis parameters and impact parameter = e.g., impact parameter 0.90 (Case A), 0.95 (Case B)
    SMFR axis orientation used to compute θ_FR-SB plane; fitted to the magnetic field data.
  • Longitude and latitude selection windows = 1.5 degrees (E1/E4) and 5 degrees (E4 extended), within 1.5-degree latitudinal zone
    Selection windows defining the co-rotating sample; the choice affects the SMFR and SB counts included in the statistics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Force-free cylindrical flux rope model adequately represents SMFR magnetic fields.
    Used to fit SMFR axes and optimize boundaries (Section 2). If pseudo-SMFRs from Alfvenic fluctuations are misclassified, orientation-based conclusions fail.
  • domain assumption PSP's co-rotating intervals sample the same solar wind source region.
    Section 2 says a common origin is inferred from longitudinal variation below 1.5 degrees; if the plasma is not from the same source, SMFR-SB associations could be coincidental.
  • domain assumption SB axis can be represented by the average magnetic field vector within the SB (magnetic tube model).
    Section 3.1 states the SB axis definition treats SBs as magnetic tubes; the geometry conclusions through planes depend on this representation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Monte Carlo null model for random SB occurrence is valid.
    Figure 3a reports significance levels but never specifies the null model; the α<0.05 claim is unverifiable without it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Switchbacks near Boundaries of Small-scale Magnetic Flux Ropes in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BCLAEKN

@misc{pith2026250608278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Switchbacks near Boundaries of Small-scale Magnetic Flux Ropes in the Young Solar Wind from Parker Solar Probe Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BCLAEKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08278}
}
abstract

The Parker Solar Probe (PSP) mission has revealed frequent occurrences of switchbacks (SBs) and small-scale magnetic flux ropes (SMFRs) as prominent structures within the solar wind. These mesoscale features are observed across all heliocentric distances, with heightened activity in the young solar wind, such as successive SMFRs, blobs, and SBs using PSP in situ observations. One study, in particular, focuses on SMFRs observed during the intervals of PSP co-rotating with the Sun, which suggests a similar source of the observed solar wind. In this letter, we identified SBs at the boundaries of SMFRs as a regularly observed phenomenon and found instances where SBs and SMFRs co-occur, with the significance level $\alpha<0.05$. The SMFR-related SBs - observed at the leading and trailing edges of an SMFR - exhibit well-organized axial co-orientations, with their polarity flipping, meaning the radial direction remains constrained while the transversal field reverses. Furthermore, the axial field directions of SMFRs-related SBs appear to be more closely connected than to another SB that is spatially closer and are linked to the SMFR orientation. Our analysis of their relative geometry, which examines the alignment between SBs and the SMFR axis, reveals a distinct tendency emphasizing their correlation, further supporting the idea that the axes of SMFR-related SBs are presumably determined by the SMFR orientation. Observations suggest that a fraction of SBs is spatially and temporally associated with SMFRs, implying that processes related to SMFR boundaries may contribute to SB formation, or that SBs tend to develop in magnetic environments shaped by SMFRs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the SMFRs and SBs observed during the co-rotational intervals of PSP’s E4 from 2020 January 25 to January 27. (a)-(i) From top to bottom, the panels show the pitch-angle distribution of suprathermal electron (314.5 eV), magnetic field intensity |B| and RT N components (Br, Bt, Bn), solar wind speed (Vsw) and its RT N components (Vr, Vt, Vn), proton density (Np), proton temperature (Tp), and plasma β (βpl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of the SMFRs and SBs. Two cases represent T-flipping case (Case A, left column in (a) and (b)) and N-flipping case (Case B, right column in (c) and (d)). (a) and (c) show time series data from PSP, with panel order consistent with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Occurrence rate and polarity distribution of SBs. (a) The occurrence rate of SBs with respect to the time difference (dTSB−F R) from the nearest SMFR for E4 inbound. Colored lines represent the occurrence rate obtained from the Monte Carlo experiments within each interval, with significant levels of 50% (green), 68% (blue), and 97.5%(magenta), respectively. (b) Histogram of angular differences between adjacent SBs i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of SMFR-related SBs’ magnetic field geometry and the corresponding SMFR. Panels (a) and (b) illustrate possible scenarios in which PSP traverses an SB-SMFR-SB structure over time. White curves represent magnetic field lines, and the cylinder represents the SM…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Solar Alfvenic Pulses and Mesoscale Solar Wind

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Solar network bright point motions produce Alfvenic pulses with ~10^25 erg and a ~8% filling factor, matching PSP switchback energies and filling factor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V ., Drake, J

    Agapitov, O. V ., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., Choi, K.-E., & Raouafi, N. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 959, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad12a5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad12a5 2023

  2. [2]

    V ., Drake, J

    Agapitov, O. V ., Drake, J. F., Swisdak, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 925, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4016

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac4016 2022

  3. [3]

    2016, Space science reviews, 204, 49

    Bale, S., Goetz, K., Harvey, P., et al. 2016, Space science reviews, 204, 49

    2016

  4. [4]

    2019, Nature, 576, 237

    Bale, S., Badman, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 237

    2019

  5. [5]

    2023, Nature, 618, 252

    Bale, S., Drake, J., McManus, M., et al. 2023, Nature, 618, 252

    2023

  6. [6]

    D., Horbury, T., Velli, M., et al

    Bale, S. D., Horbury, T., Velli, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 923, 174

    2021

  7. [7]

    2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A181

    Velli, M. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 694, A181

    2025

  8. [8]

    2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113 —

    Cartwright, M., & Moldwin, M. 2008, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 113 —. 2010, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 115

    2008

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    W., Kasper, J

    Case, A. W., Kasper, J. C., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 43

    2020

  2. [10]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 43 —

    Chen, Y ., & Hu, Q. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 924, 43 —. 2025, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 130, e2024JA033130

    2022

  3. [11]

    C., & Jian, L

    Chen, Y ., Hu, Q., Allen, R. C., & Jian, L. K. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 943, 33

    2023

  4. [12]

    Chen, Y ., Hu, Q., & le Roux, J. A. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 881, 58

    2019

  5. [13]

    C., & Huang, J

    Chen, Y ., Hu, Q., Zhao, L., Kasper, J. C., & Huang, J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfd30

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 98

    Choi, K.-E., Lee, D.-Y ., Marubashi, K., & Lee, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 98

    2022

  7. [15]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f6

    Choi, K.-E., Lee, D.-Y ., Noh, S.-J., & Agapitov, O. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad02f6

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    2021, Solar Physics, 296, 1

    Choi, K.-E., Lee, D.-Y ., Wang, H.-E., et al. 2021, Solar Physics, 296, 1

    2021

  9. [17]

    2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109 de Pablos, D., Samanta, T., Badman, S

    Crooker, N., Kahler, S., Larson, D., & Lin, R. 2004, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 109 de Pablos, D., Samanta, T., Badman, S. T., et al. 2022, Solar Physics, 297, 90

    2004

  10. [18]

    F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al

    Drake, J. F., Agapitov, O., Swisdak, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039432 Dudok de Wit, T., Krasnoselskikh, V . V ., Bale, S. D., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 39

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A27

    Eastwood, J., Stawarz, J., Phan, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 656, A27

    2021

  12. [20]

    P., et al

    Fargette, N., Lavraud, B., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 663, A109, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243537

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 965, L18

    Farooki, H., Lee, J., Pecora, F., Wang, H., & Kim, H. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 965, L18

    2024

  14. [22]

    2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 10

    Feng, H., Zhao, G., & Wang, J. 2015, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120, 10

    2015

  15. [23]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L4

    Fisk, L., & Kasper, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 894, L4

    2020

  16. [24]

    J., Velli, M

    Fox, N. J., Velli, M. C., Bale, S. D., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 7, doi: 10.1007/s11214-015-0211-6

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A5

    Froment, C., Krasnoselskikh, V ., Dudok de Wit, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A5

    2021

  18. [26]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, L111

    Greco, A., Matthaeus, W., Servidio, S., Chuychai, P., & Dmitruk, P. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, L111

    2009

  19. [27]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 913, L14

    He, J., Zhu, X., Yang, L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 913, L14

    2021

  20. [28]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1980

    Horbury, T., Matteini, L., & Stansby, D. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 478, 1980

    2018

  21. [29]

    S., Woolley, T., Laker, R., et al

    Horbury, T. S., Woolley, T., Laker, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab5b15

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 12

    Hu, Q., Zheng, J., Chen, Y ., le Roux, J., & Zhao, L. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 239, 12

    2018

  23. [31]

    C.-M., Peng, J., et al

    Huang, J., Liu, Y . C.-M., Peng, J., et al. 2017, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 122, 6927

    2017

  24. [32]

    C., Fisk, L

    Huang, J., Kasper, J. C., Fisk, L. A., et al. 2023a, The Astrophysical Journal, 952, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd17e

    doi

  25. [33]

    K., Raouafi, N., Bourouaine, S., et al

    Jagarlamudi, V . K., Raouafi, N., Bourouaine, S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 950, L7

    2023

  26. [34]

    2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL108270

    Jia, Y .-D., Qi, Y ., Wang, X., et al. 2024, Geophysical Research Letters, 51, e2024GL108270

    2024

  27. [35]

    1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 24373

    Kahler, S., Crocker, N., & Gosling, J. 1996, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 101, 24373

    1996

  28. [36]

    1994, Geophysical research letters, 21, 1575

    Kahler, S., & Lin, R. 1994, Geophysical research letters, 21, 1575

    1994

  29. [37]

    2021, Physical review letters, 127, 255101

    Kasper, J., Klein, K., Lichko, E., et al. 2021, Physical review letters, 127, 255101

    2021

  30. [38]

    C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al

    Kasper, J. C., Abiad, R., Austin, G., et al. 2016, Space Science Reviews, 204, 131

    2016

  31. [39]

    C., Bale, S

    Kasper, J. C., Bale, S. D., Belcher, J. W., et al. 2019, Nature, 576, 228

    2019

  32. [40]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    Krasnoselskikh, V ., Larosa, A., Agapitov, O., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 893, 93, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7f2d

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    S., Matteini, L., et al

    Laker, R., Horbury, T. S., Matteini, L., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 1001, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2477

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    S., Woodham, L

    Laker, R., Horbury, T. S., Woodham, L. D., Bale, S. D., & Matteini, L. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 10440, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3351

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    2006, Geophysical research letters, 33 SWITCHBACKS NEAR BOUNDARIES OF SMFR S FROM PSP OBSERVATIONS 13

    Landi, S., Hellinger, P., & Velli, M. 2006, Geophysical research letters, 33 SWITCHBACKS NEAR BOUNDARIES OF SMFR S FROM PSP OBSERVATIONS 13

    2006

  36. [44]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    Larosa, A., Krasnoselskikh, V ., Dudok de Wit, T., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039442

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    2020, The Astrophysical journal letters, 894, L19

    Lavraud, B., Fargette, N., R´eville, V ., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical journal letters, 894, L19

    2020

  38. [46]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 79

    Lee, J., Wang, H., Wang, J., & Wang, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 963, 79

    2024

  39. [47]

    E., Kasper, J

    Livi, R., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 938, 138

    2022

  40. [48]

    R., Owens, M

    Macneil, A. R., Owens, M. J., Wicks, R. T., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 3642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa951

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    D., Bowen, T., & Bale, S

    Mallet, A., Squire, J., Chandran, B. D., Bowen, T., & Bale, S. D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 918, 62 Martinovi´c, M. M., Klein, K. G., Huang, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 28

    2021

  42. [50]

    2010, in Solar Wind 12: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed

    Marubashi, K., Cho, K.-S., & Park, Y .-D. 2010, in Solar Wind 12: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Solar Wind Conference, ed. M. Maksimovic, K. Issautier, N. Meyer-Vernet, M. Moncuquet, & F. Pantellini, V ol. 1216 (Saint-Malo, France: American Institute of Physics), 24...

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 11

    Matteini, L., Horbury, T., Pantellini, F., Velli, M., & Schwartz, S. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, 11

    2015

  44. [52]

    D., Chen, C., & Wang, R

    Meng, M.-M., Liu, Y . D., Chen, C., & Wang, R. 2022, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 22, 035018

    2022

  45. [53]

    2000, Geophysical research letters, 27, 57

    Moldwin, M., Ford, S., Lepping, R., Slavin, J., & Szabo, A. 2000, Geophysical research letters, 27, 57

    2000

  46. [54]

    B., Phillips, J

    Moldwin, M. B., Phillips, J. L., Gosling, J. T., et al. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 19903, doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/95JA01123

    1995 doi

  47. [55]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 68

    Mozer, F., Agapitov, O., Bale, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 68

    2020

  48. [56]

    S., Bale, S., Bonnell, J., et al

    Mozer, F. S., Bale, S., Bonnell, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 919, 60

    2021

  49. [57]

    1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 23389

    Balogh, A. 1995, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 100, 23389

    1995

  50. [58]

    Neugebauer, M., & Sterling, A. C. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L31

    2021

  51. [59]

    2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1868

    Owens, M., Crooker, N., & Lockwood, M. 2013, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118, 1868

    2013

  52. [60]

    E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al

    Raouafi, N. E., Matteini, L., Squire, J., et al. 2023, Space Science Reviews, 219, 8, doi: 10.1007/s11214-023-00952-4 R´eville, V ., Velli, M., Rouillard, A. P., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical journal letters, 895, L20

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    J., Badman, S

    Rivera, Y . J., Badman, S. T., Stevens, M. L., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 974, 198

    2024

  54. [62]

    2009, Solar Physics, 256, 307

    Rouillard, A., Savani, N., Davies, J., et al. 2009, Solar Physics, 256, 307

    2009

  55. [63]

    2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 7

    Rouillard, A., Sheeley, N., Cooper, T., et al. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 734, 7

    2011

  56. [64]

    H., Chhiber, R., et al

    Ruffolo, D., Matthaeus, W. H., Chhiber, R., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 94

    2020

  57. [65]

    1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 241

    Rust, D. 1994, Geophysical Research Letters, 21, 241

    1994

  58. [66]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 51

    Sanchez-Diaz, E., Rouillard, A., Lavraud, B., Kilpua, E., & Davies, J. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 882, 51

    2019

  59. [67]

    A., & McComas, D

    Schwadron, N. A., & McComas, D. J. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 909, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd4e6

    2021 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 964, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad335a

    Shi, C., Velli, M., Toth, G., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 964, L28, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad335a

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L19

    Shi, C., Zhao, J., Huang, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L19

    2021

  62. [70]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 152

    Shi, C., Panasenco, O., Velli, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 934, 152

    2022

  63. [71]

    D., & Cranmer, S

    Shoda, M., Chandran, B. D., & Cranmer, S. R. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 52

    2021

  64. [72]

    D., & Meyrand, R

    Squire, J., Chandran, B. D., & Meyrand, R. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 891, L2

    2020

  65. [73]

    2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29

    Squire, J., Johnston, Z., Mallet, A., & Meyrand, R. 2022, Physics of Plasmas, 29

    2022

  66. [74]

    C., & Moore, R

    Sterling, A. C., & Moore, R. L. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab96be

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 205

    Telloni, D., Carbone, V ., Perri, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 826, 205

    2016

  68. [76]

    P., Stangalini, M., et al

    Telloni, D., Zank, G. P., Stangalini, M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical journal letters, 936, L25

    2022

  69. [77]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 867, L26

    Tenerani, A., & Velli, M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 867, L26

    2018

  70. [78]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 32

    Tenerani, A., Velli, M., Matteini, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 32

    2020

  71. [79]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 454

    Tian, H., Yao, S., Zong, Q., He, J., & Qi, Y . 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 454

    2010

  72. [80]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd91

    Toth, G., Velli, M., & Van Der Holst, B. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 957, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfd91

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    L., Larson, D

    Whittlesey, P. L., Larson, D. E., Kasper, J. C., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 74

    2020

  74. [82]

    D., et al

    Woolley, T., Matteini, L., McManus, M. D., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 508, 236

    2021

  75. [83]

    F., DeV ore, C

    Wyper, P. F., DeV ore, C. R., Antiochos, S. K., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 941, L29, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca8ae

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 511

    Yamauchi, Y ., Moore, R., Suess, S., Wang, H., & Sakurai, T. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 605, 511

    2004

  77. [85]

    J., Galvin, A., et al

    Yu, W., Farrugia, C. J., Galvin, A., et al. 2016, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121, 5005

    2016

  78. [86]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1

    Zank, G., Nakanotani, M., Zhao, L.-L., Adhikari, L., & Kasper, J. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 903, 1

    2020

  79. [87]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 26 14 C HOI ET AL

    Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G., Adhikari, L., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 246, 26 14 C HOI ET AL

    2020

  80. [88]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A12

    Zhao, L.-L., Zank, G., Hu, Q., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 650, A12

    2021

  81. [89]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852, L23

    Zheng, J., & Hu, Q. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 852, L23

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.